A thought to consider for people wringing their hands over the “split” in the labor movement: maybe this will be a really good thing.

I’ve been ruminating over this for many weeks, sometimes writing pieces of it here and there. A definition first: reasonable people may disagree but I do not see the creation of the Change To Win coalition as a split (by the way, I’ve posted a few of the initial documents from yesterday’s events–more to come as I receive them). Of course, this is playing out on the background of the threat by some unions to leave the Federation. But, it is not the same thing as disaffiliation. And it might be worth taking people at their word that the coalition wants to try some new things.

Here are some ways to think about all this (and I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow):

1. To some extent, we get caught up in the feud fueled by the way the media has focused on it–just on the horse race, the bad blood, the drama of the father-son (Sweeney-Stern) relationship (see today’s Washington Post story and New York Times story–registration required). As I said yesterday, not a single reporter asked about any of the organizing plans the new coalition has afoot. The answer might have been–we’re still working on that. But, heck, ask the question. Because the media rarely spends this much energy on labor issues, consumers of the information have no context in which to understand the complexities of how the labor movement operates (or doesn’t operate).

2. The argument that the creation of the coalition or an actual split will hurt labor’s image assumes a really odd thing–that the outside world, presumably unorganized workers, has any clue what the AFL-CIO does or says. I don’t think employers are busily designing leaflets that say, “Unions Challenge Sweeney, Don’t Vote For the Union.” It’s just not relevant in trying to build power at the workplace.

3. The handwringing about the “split” is happening in a very small circle. It’s happening at 16th Street (understandably, among the workers there because the political power struggle triggered the clumsiest, ill-thought out reorganization I’ve ever seen–actually, reorganization is too kind a word because it presumes a considered, strategic planning process), it’s happening among a small circle of labor leaders and activists, and it’s happening in the press. Maybe we are just way too caught up in the institutions we’re used to or comfortable with.

4. What really changes if some unions leave the AFL-CIO? I mean, in terms of real organizing? As long as people are sincere about reaching no-raiding agreements (and AFSCME’s Gerry McEntee, statements condemning the insurgents notwithstanding, will be happy to make one with SEIU) and cooperating on political programs, what changes?

5. In the end, this will be determined by relationships. I think it’s far more important to urge people to keep communicating and lower the hostility level, than obsess about structure. Sure, it’s fine to keep cajoling people to stay in the AFL-CIO, if that makes sense. But, let’s not have a freak-out if one or more unions ends up leaving.

Let’s consider, then, this scenario: the Change To Win Coalition actually is able to try some interesting campaigns or projects. Maybe one or more unions leaves the AFL-CIO and the coalition evolves into a new umbrella. It should, then, be judged on its success or failure. If it succeeds, workers have more power. If it fails, it goes away or becomes irrelevant. End of story.

But, yeah, you wanna know, you’re dying to know, will unions leave the AFL-CIO? So, here’s your dose for the morning, you addict. Six months ago, I thought a lot of the disaffiliation talk was bluster, political maneuvering and posturing. Today, it’s obvious SEIU will leave. I think that’s true of UNITE-HERE, also. The UFCW has moved closer to the door. I would say that at this point, of the five, the Laborers are the least likely to leave in the short-term.

Again, what’s interesting is where the Teamsters are now. Hoffa started out as a relative moderate in his relationship to the AFL-CIO. But, I get the sense that he is getting more pissed at Sweeney. Again, it was big news yesterday that he explicitly stated that he will raised the issue of disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO at his board meeting in July. Until now, he’s kept that off the agenda internally because, as I mentioned yesterday, he’s got a lot of board members who would be happy to leave the AFL-CIO.

One question bouncing around after yesterday’s press conference (in particular in the bars in Washington, D.C….you know, it’s one of the job hazards of this life and someone has to do it so anytime you’re ready to jump all over me for some dumb statement, just remember the risks and sacrifice I go through for the your sake): should the insurgent unions even attend the AFL-CIO convention in July even if they haven’t left the AFL-CIO?

Hmmm…my take is this: unless something stunning happens, the insurgents will not have the votes to make any changes they seek in either the Constitution or on policy. Even with 35-40 percent of the votes, the insurgents will have barely 9 percent of the delegates (partly because of the delegate power carried by Central Labor Councils and State Federation: almost 600 delegates compared to the 447 delegates carried by affiliates).

For anyone not familiar with AFL-CIO conventions, gone are the days (if they ever existed) when an idea would capture the imagination of delegates on the floor of the convention, sweep through the hall and persuade people to vote a different way. It’s all locked up and totally controlled–just like the Democratic and Republican Party conventions.

So, why go? You’re not going to change minds. Instead, it will just feed the media perception and the story of the internal feud–and that’s no help. On the other hand, in that vein, you don’t want to feed the perception of the feud by boycotting the convention. So, maybe it makes sense to simply send a token delegation, not concede anything but keep a low profile.